Drop the implementation of CHECK_SRVIDS control
amitay at gmail.com
Wed Aug 30 03:41:34 UTC 2017
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke at sernet.de
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:13:56PM +1000, Amitay Isaacs wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be easier to switch to using new control?
> Attached find a pretty raw implementation of
> CTDB_CONTROL_CHECK_PID_SRVID. Tested manually.
The layering violation is ugly and we don't really need that.
I have a simpler solution by extending srvid_exists().
Also, we need lot more code in various places including tests. :-)
I will post the patches as soon as the protocol changes are upstream.
Meanwhile, I want to fix the implementation of PROCESS_EXISTS.
The patches are attached. Should we backport this to 4.6? (Will need a bug
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 13048 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the samba-technical